HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 82452,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/82452/?format=api",
"text_counter": 275,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Speaker",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "On the second objection raised by the Minister with respect to imputation of improper motive and allegations against his personal conduct and character without a Substantive Motion, the letter and spirit of the Standing Orders need to be put in perspective. The Standing Orders require that every Member be allowed a fair chance to know of any allegations of improper motive proposed to be leveled against him or her and he or she be allowed a fair chance to respond to those allegations. That is why Standing Order No.79 Paragraph 4 provides that no Member shall impute improper motive to any other Member except upon a specific Substantive Motion of which, at least, three days notice has been given, putting in question the conduct of that Member. It is, however, important to note that the Motion on the Report of the Committee is a Substantive Motion of which the requisite notice has been given. A few significant matters of principle arise which I think are important for hon. Members to observe as we proceed with the disposal of this Motion. The first of these matters is the value of the work done by the Committees and the need to accord respect and dignity to their work. Committees of the House, when they discharge their respective mandate, do so as agents of the House. When they report back, it behooves the House to pay keen attention to their findings and recommendations, deliberate and make appropriate resolutions on them. It is the role of the House and the Chair to facilitate the work of the Committees of the House and to ensure that they properly discharge their mandate. Neither the Committees nor individual Members should be obstructed in any way in deliberating any work done by the Committees. The second point is the need for fairness and decorum in the proceedings of this House. Every Member and, indeed, all persons have a proprietary interest in their reputations. It is, therefore, important that careful thought be given to any aspersions intended to be cast on any personâs conduct and that the maker of any such statement is prepared to vouch for its veracity. The third and final point concerns the importance of the House being seen to discharge its mandate with diligence and attention without undue resort to extraneous matters. I think that it is useful that when there is a Report of a committee up for discussion by the House, contributions to the debate stay faithful to the matters considered by the Committee, the conclusions reached and the recommendations made. Debate on such Motion is not the occasion for fresh investigation, introduction of new evidence or the making of new recommendations not linked to the work already done by the Committee. Hon. Members, applying the tests, I have observed the above and I make the following findings:- First, the reports referred to by hon. Adan Keynan are records of this House and it is not objectionable to make reference to them. However, any such reference must be accurate, fair and relevant. In the present case, I have had the opportunity to look at the Report of the Public Investments Committee and, in particular, the 12th, 13th and 14th Reports, which hon. Keynan referred to. Without going into the minute details of each Report, I find that while some references are made in the Reports to hon. Moses Wetangula, the statements made by hon. Keynan are not accurate. In particular, the statement that one of the reports quoted by hon. Keynan on the Floor of the House had a recommendation that hon. Wetangula should be barred from holding public office is not correct. Additionally, I uphold the objection of hon. Wetangula that the statements are also not fair on account of those matters having been appropriately dealt with and disposed off. The question of whether the statements made are relevant in this matter become of little consequential on account of the finding that they are inaccurate. In this regard, I, therefore, rule that so far as the references to the reports were concerned, hon. Keynan was out of order, only to the extent that I have found. On the second objection, I rule that the Motion on the Report is a Substantive Motion for adoption of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Defence and Foreign Relations on the subject of Procurement, Disposal and Construction of Properties of Kenyaâs diplomatic missions in Egypt, Japan, Nigeria, Belgium and Pakistan. It is a Report of a Committee within the meaning of Standing Order No.181 and, therefore, all contributions to the Motion must stay within the subject matter and contents of the Report as set out in Standing Order No.181, Paragraph 3. I further rule that subject to the Standing Orders, there is no bar on a Member in contributing to any Motion to refer to any matter contained in the Report. However, I must caution that it is not open for a Member to introduce matters extraneous to the Report and a Member making any allegations against any person must be prepared to show that those matters have been raised or dealt with by the Report or otherwise. The Member must be prepared to substantiate such allegations. In conclusion, I order that the Motion proceeds and encourage all Members to abide by these directions. I thank you. The Member for Yatta, you may proceed."
}